The racial reality is that there is only one race, the human race!

Any law, policy or administrative directive based on skin color (race) is manifestly unfair and utterly ridiculous. There can be no other logical, reasoned conclusion because there is only one race: the human race.

Yet we find an entire system encompasing education, welfare, health and a slew of other issues where decisions are made based primarily on the color of a person’s skin. What makes the situation even more disturbing is that the system has all the authority and coercive power of government.

There was another time in this nation when decisions about a person’s educational opportunities, access to health care and other personal matters were made based on skin color. The system was called slavery.

So it would seem we have not come as far as we might have once hoped. We have, it seems, traded a privite system for a public one. How sad, how sad!

Conclusion:
If it was morally reprehensable for a member of the human race to have personal opportunity systematically determined by skin color in the past then merely tranfering the system to government does not make it any less reprehensable. The only result is the continual fomenting of hard feelings based entirely on somethin as utterly inconsequetial as…skin color.

Thanks for reading!

CAUTION:

If you believe basic human rights are granted by government…

   You might be a Liberal!

If you hold “society” responsible for everything and individuals responsible for nothing…
   You might be a Liberal!

If you think States Rights is a reality show…
   You might be a Liberal!

If you don’t bother about issues but “vote for the man…”
   You might be a Liberal!

If you believe others have a right to your property…
   You might be a Liberal!

(If you believe others have a right to MY property you are definitely a Liberal!)

If you believe in equality of outcomes…
   You might be a Liberal!

If you see problems in our nation and think “the ‘gubment’ ought to do something…”
   You might be a Liberal!

And finally,

If you are more concerned about your subjective opinion than objective fact…

   You might be a Liberal

Thanks for reading.

I was recently reminded of a pithy little statement I read years ago which says “If your only tool is a hammer, all your problems look like nails.” There’s a lot of truth contained in that thought. Just because a tool is ideal for one job does not mean it has utility for any other.

Government has only one tool: FORCE!

Whether we use the term police powers, coercion or military power it all comes down to the same idea. And don’t you find it interesting that force only has meaning in the context of resistance. You see, if everyone always treated others in the way they themselves wish to be treated (sound familiar?) then government would be completely unnecessary. Therefore, the need for government is wholly negative, required in order to restrain those who refuse to recognise and respect what our Founders called “natural rights”ie, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

By confining government to that tiny but important sphere the framers of our nation acknowledged a tremendous truth regarding force: it can only be positive when used against a negative. To put it bluntly, the power of government is meant to protect individual freedom by holding individuals responsible. If politicians endeavor to go outside this boundry they become usurpers and oppressors.

President Barack Hussein Obama and his cadre of Progressive Liberals wield the tool of government over more and more of our personal lives promising some kind of undefinable “fairness.” But what they forge are the chains and shackles of slavery meant for us and our children. Now the existence of a slave presupposes the existence of the master. Make no mistake, by exempting themselves Congress and the President reveal that they consider themselves master and you the slave!

Regardless of your political affiliation, using the coercive power of government for any other purpose than securing citizens natural rights is perverse and can only supplant freedom. That, my fellow Americans, is positively a negative!

Thanks for reading.

“…the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…” are words immortalized in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America.

These are powerful, profound words with meaning that ought to be dear to all our citizens. Because of this power and profundity we need to carefully consider any claim to a “right.” People often speak of a right to something, but just what is a right? What is the definition of the term?

There are two principles fundamental to a legitimate understanding of the way our society uses the word “right.” First, a right exists simultaneously among people. Second, a right conveys no obligation on another. Violate either of these doctrines and you are simply not dealing with a human right. Consider an example regarding the right to travel freely. I have the right to visit family in another state, but I do not have the right to demand you pay for the trip!

The Good

Basic human rights, as recognized in our Declaration of Independence, are the foundation upon which a free society is built. Establishing and defending these rights constitutes the sole purpose, entire scope, and ultimate justification for the government of the U.S.

The Bad

There is an unmistakably clear drift away from the legitimate understanding of what comprises a right. Many good, noble, important and valuable concepts simply do not belong in the “rights” category. Education, housing and health care are three prime examples.

The Ugly

Governments have no resources of their own so any dollar “reallocated” by government has been taken from another citizen. By labeling things like education or health care as “rights” we inevitably diminish the most basic right of other citizens, that being the right to do as they will with their own property (money, if you will.) No amount of rhetoric can change the fact that if someone has the right to what they did NOT earn someone else must be denied the right to what they DID earn.

So, basically, if what you consider your “right” entails someone else bearing the cost(s) whether financially, physically or in violation of their will it is not a right. PERIOD!

Thanks for reading.

Calling all Democrats!

This will be a short article, not because there’s little to write, but because there’s so much that needs to be said. It’s quite overwhelming! I am boiling it down to one simple question and here it is:

Is your personal vision of how American society ought to look worth enslaving your fellow citizens?

Forcing men and women to work against their will sounds like slavery to me! Forcably confiscating the property of men and women in a systematic way sounds like slavery to me! Forcing men and women to “buy” a product they don’t want may not meet the absolute definition of slavery but it certainly has nothing to do with freedom. Is this what Democrats really want? Where is the moral high ground?

Please answer these tough questions and be true to yourself, to freedom and to your posterity. I cannot believe what America is becoming is what you want to bequith to your children and grandchildren. Personal freedom and personal responsibility is not with out hardship but it is surely better and preferable to slavery.

Thanks for reading.

Perspective is a ticklish thing, personal and subject. It is not always reliable as a guide and especially so in isolation. For example, the same hurricane presents vastly differing experiences depending on whether your perspective is that of a meteorologist behind a desk or that of a crew member of an ocean going vessel caught in the storm’s fury. We often need to broaden our view and expand our considerations in order to get a truer picture of life.

The study of History provides us an invaluable and very practical resource for evaluating perspective. But such study can act as a wet blanket when we discover that cherished ideas are not in the least novel or even untried. An ancient wisdom text reads “There is no new thing under the sun.” We, with collective chagrin, bow our heads in reluctant agreement.

So I turn (rather return) to a respected voice from America’s past whose perspective has the added credibility of that of an outsider with no iron in the fire, as it were. Alexis deToqueville authored the classic work Democracy in America as the culmination of his search for what the greatness of America was all about. You need to read the book but the following quotes are quite telling.

“It must never be forgotten that religion gave birth to Anglo-American society. In the United States, religion is therefore mingled with all the habits of the nation and all the feelings of patriotism…”

“The Americans, having admitted the principal doctrines of the Christian religion without inquiry, are obliged to accept in like manner a great number of moral truths originating in it…”

There is no use attempting to ignore or avoid the solid Judeo-Christian base upon which America was founded and even now rests! DeToqueville could see it and we must acknowledge it also. Move away from these principles and their “moral truths” and America becomes something other than the greatest, most prosperous, most sought after nation on earth.

Now some would say that is just what should happen and claim it will be “better.” If you hold that opinion my challenge to you is to demonstrate how abandoning our founding principles results in “good” or in something “better.” But remember that notions of good and better are meaningless apart from an objective standard. As a Christian I know these standards. Do you?

Be careful you don’t saw off the branch upon which you sit.

Thanks for reading.

Socrates said “The unexamined life is not worth living.” I believe he was on to something and so let’s indulge in a little speculative thinking. Let’s ask “What if?”

What if candidates for representative office were drafted by random lottery?

This could function something like jury duty does now. The emphasis is on duty, which is where most citizens believe it should be. Notice I am suggesting candidates be selected this way, popular vote would still decide who was to actually serve. Additionally, all the same Constitutional qualifications would still apply as are required now.

Some likely outcomes include:

Term Limits – serve your tour of duty and then come home.

Special Interests’ Power Curbed – groups could no longer promise support for a future election.

Truly Representative – millionaire status would no longer be required. Most Americans are not “rich” despite what the Left constantly asserts!

De-emphasis of “Experience” – what is political experience anyway unless it refers to effectively spending other people’s money?

Emphasis on Character – the public would be inclined to scrutinize the character of prospective candidates rather than a professionally polished image.

The most interesting thing about an idea like this lies in how it completely changes the way Washington currently operates. Power immediately returns to the people and the entrenched establishments suddenly find themselves utterly up-rooted. It stirs the imagination, don’t you agree?

Unfortunately this does nothing to rid the nation of the so called “Fourth Branch of Government.” Bureaucracies are the unelected lawmakers of the nation. Anyone have a “what if” that might rid us of their tyranny? Please let us know!

Thanks for reading.

Several weeks ago, while waiting for my lovely wife, I was listening to talk radio. I am always good for that. Anyway… up came the subject of compromise.

Compromise – it’s a word we’ve all heard our whole adult lives. The secret to a good marriage is compromise… politicians should be willing to compromise… we should all be willing to give and take – compromise… the world would be a better place if we could all just compromise; all ideally valid points, ideally. And all wrong in reality.

Compromise is nothing more than giving away something. Give me your wallet! No? Okay, let’s compromise; just give me your cash; okay, just the credit cards. That’s fair; I’ll buy you lunch. Still no? Okay, I’ll shoot you. Again, let’s compromise; I’ll just shoot you in the toe – how about the little toe? Either way, you’re losing money or blood.

Consider our lawmakers. We all have principals, and we all have ideas that we feel represent the best interest for our state and America. Conservatives have certain ideas (or at least they did): limited government, lower taxes, strong military, etc. If we compromise our fiscal principals in a “Compassionate Conservative” way, we have giving away our livelihoods. If we compromise our advocacy for the unborn simply because the best choice happens to be pro-choice, we compromised our morals. And if we weaken our military to gain popularity in the world, we compromised our sovereignty and freedom. Compromise is what brought us the McCain-Kennedy Education Bill, aka No Child Left Behind, the McCain-Feingold  Elections Ethics Bill; how has that worked for curbing the money problem in politics. Compromise brought us Medicare Part B, the auto industry bailout, and countless other boondoggles at Americans’ expense.

Why must we compromise to select or elect the lesser of two unfit candidates? The national Republican Party has been losing popularity, because it’s been losing its soul compromising on the issues and moving slowly to the left. Whereas we conservatives have been firmly planted on the right, unwilling to compromise, unwilling to give up on our values, our principles, and our foundation.

I agree with Elbert Hubbard, “It is the weak man who urges compromise – never the strong man.”

Here are a few thoughts after considering the so called health care summit…

Clearly, President Barack Hussein Obama has major ego issues. Arrogance looks as bad on him as it does on anyone else.

Republicans can stop being timid about “philosophical differences” they have with the president. Those differences are the reason we voted for them.

President Barack Hussein Obama dismisses the deeply held concerns of tens of millions of American citizens as “talking points.”

The Republicans get points for having the chutzpa to attend what everyone knew was theater directed by the enemy.

“That’s what elections are for” seems to be understood by the president as Carte blanche to bypass the legislative process. Note to the president…You are not the king!

The real problem is not  in fact health care. We enjoy the best health care in the world. The actual problem is one of delivery, it’s too expensive. Too expensive can only mean one thing…inefficiency!

Health care delivery is inefficient because there is a third party involved in the health care transaction, insurance companies. They are now the customer.

Customers make the demands, customers are catered to and served as opposed to patients who read old magazines and wait…and wait…and wait…

The reason health care is complicated has little to do with medicine, doctors or patients. It has everything to do with a third party having no medical incentive whatsoever.

The most telling and disturbing moment of the “summit” came when the President was in fact and in point incorrect about the costs of his plan. He countered with the justification that insurance would be “better” under his plan. By dismissing objective fact with the subjective notion of better insurance he clearly exposed the ultimate problem with all Liberal and Progressive ideology. They don’t believe in personal liberty, not if it conflicts with what economist and author Thomas Sowell refers to as the “Vision of the Anointed.”

They plan to see their vision become policy, even if they have to make back room deals, treat the people of different states unequally and/or subvert the legislative process to accomplish it.

Please feel free to comment and let us know what you observed.

Thanks for reading!

Most of you who were around during the Vietnam War error probably remember that famous line, “What if they gave a war and nobody came?” When Carl Sandburg made those comments, it became a cultural motto. Charlotte Keyes wrote a poem, the Monkeys recorded a song, and countless others used it in media.

So, what if they gave an election and nobody came? Those of us on the right are fed up with those on the right – a great deal of words and not enough action, too much spending, and not enough discretion, and the list goes on. And interestingly those on the left are fed up with those on the left. There hasn’t been a legitimate conservative representative in 30 years. Yes, there have been a few candidates of late who have shown some promise, Doug Hoffman, Sarah Palin, Marco Rubio, and couple others. But, every time someone shows potential the media lights them up or they fall on their face, a la Governor Mark Sanford. The mainstream GOPers are entrenched in beltway politics, the almighty dollar, and never-ending GOTV efforts.  The national Republican Party has promoted liberal candidates like Dede Scozzafava and Charlie Chris, and quietly tossed away the Tea Party as nothing more than a temporary uprising. After last week’s CPAC conference last week, the closing straw poll showed Ron Paul as the front-running conservative candidate. Yes, the same Ron Paul who drew a whopping 3.5% of the required delegates in the ’08 primaries. To us, that was significant; we are craving a conservative candidate. To the mainstream party reps, “it was a straw poll.” Go figure…

Here’s the problem I see with November, and why, I think, there may be an election where nobody shows up; at least no one on the right. In most states, there are two recognizable parties – Republican and Democrat. Some states have other parties, but the ballot requirements are outdated, unfair, and frankly, un-American. In my home state of NC for example, primaries are closed to unaffiliated voters, and this year independent candidates will likely have to have 90,000 signatures to make it on the ballot anyway. So, if those of us who are generally supportive of the GOP aren’t impressed with the GOP’s representative, we’ll likely go third party, or stay home. There are some things where you just can’t compromise.

Hmmm… compromise; there’s a post for a later day.